Fatal Hit-and-Run Motorcycle Crash on University Boulevard in Odessa: What the Evidence Already Shows
You are reading this because someone you love is gone. Two people — a husband and wife, 40 and 38 years old, from Midland — were killed on the night of April 2 at the intersection of W University Boulevard and Sycamore Drive in Odessa. They were on a motorcycle. A Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck turned in front of them. The impact pinned both of them beneath the truck. The driver got out, saw what he had done, and ran.
We are not going to pretend that words on a screen can fix what happened. They cannot. What we can do — what this page exists to do — is give you the straight truth about what the law allows, what the evidence shows, what the insurance company is already doing, and what happens in the days and weeks ahead if you pick up the phone. You are reading this at a terrible hour. We know. We are here at every hour — 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with live staff, not an answering service.
Here is the first thing you need to hear: what happened on University Boulevard was not an accident. It was a series of choices. A driver chose to turn into the path of a motorcycle. That driver chose to leave two human beings pinned beneath his truck. And when investigators searched that truck, they found a nearly empty bottle of beer. Those facts — each one of them — open a different door to accountability under Texas law. Our job is to walk through every door, not just the first one.
“Investigators said the driver of the Chevrolet, later identified as Aranda, ran from the scene after seeing the pinned victims.”
That sentence, from the public reporting of this crash, is the single most important fact in the entire case. Not because it is dramatic — because it is the legal foundation for punitive damages. A driver who turns into a motorcycle has committed negligence. A driver who sees two people trapped beneath his vehicle and runs away has committed something worse: conscious indifference to human life. Under Texas law, that distinction is the difference between an ordinary negligence case and a case that can pursue exemplary — punitive — damages designed to punish.
The man accused, Ignacio Junior Aranda, 41, of Weslaco, was arrested on April 20 — eighteen days after the crash. He was charged with Accident Involving Death, a second-degree felony. He posted a $50,000 bond and went home the same day. If you are the family of Kristofer and Jessica Goodrum, that fact may feel like a second wound. We want you to understand what it means and what it does not mean. It means the criminal justice system has set a price on his freedom pending prosecution. It does not mean anyone has compensated your family. It does not mean the civil case is resolved. It does not mean the evidence is safe. The criminal case and the civil case are two separate things, and the civil case — your case — is the one that pays for what this loss has done to your family.
The Criminal Case and the Civil Case Are Two Separate Things
The first question every family asks us is some version of: “He was arrested. He’s charged. Doesn’t that mean we win?”
No. It means the State of Texas has accused him of a crime. The criminal case is the State of Texas versus Ignacio Junior Aranda. The prosecutor’s job is to seek a conviction — a prison sentence, a fine paid to the state, probation. None of that money goes to you. None of it replaces the income your family has lost. None of it pays for the funeral, the medical bills, the grief, the empty chairs at the table.
Your case is a civil wrongful death and survival action. It is the Estate of Kristofer Goodrum and the Estate of Jessica Goodrum — and their surviving family members — against every party whose choices contributed to their deaths. That includes the driver. But it may also include his employer, if the truck was a company vehicle. It may include a bar or restaurant that served him alcohol before the crash. It may include his automobile insurance company. And it may include the victims’ own uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier.
A criminal conviction helps your civil case — it can establish negligence per se, meaning the jury can be told that the defendant violated a criminal statute and that violation caused the deaths. But you do not need to wait for the criminal case to finish. The civil clock is already running. In Texas, the statute of limitations for wrongful death and survival actions is two years from the date of death. For this crash, that means the deadline to file is April 2 of the second year following. If you wait for the criminal case to resolve — which can take years — you may lose your right to file the civil case entirely.
Two years sounds like a long time. It is not. The evidence in this case is dying right now, as you read this. Surveillance footage from businesses near the intersection of University Boulevard and Sycamore Drive is being overwritten on a rolling cycle — often within 7 to 30 days. The truck’s Event Data Recorder — its black box — contains pre-impact speed, braking, throttle position, steering input, and whether the turn signal was activated. That data can be overwritten or lost if the vehicle is repaired, sold, or scrapped. Cell phone records that would show where the driver was before the crash — and whether he was texting or calling at the moment of impact — are purged by carriers on their own retention schedules, often within 60 to 180 days. Employment records that would prove whether the Silverado was a company vehicle can be altered or destroyed.
The single most important thing you can do right now is make sure a preservation letter goes out — a formal demand that every party and every third-party vendor lock down the evidence before it disappears. That letter goes out the day you call a lawyer. Not the week after. Not after the funeral. The day you call.
Who Can Be Held Legally Responsible Under Texas Law
In a hit-and-run wrongful death case, the at-fault driver is the obvious defendant. But the driver is often the person with the fewest assets and the thinnest insurance. The $50,000 bond in this case is a signal — not proof, but a signal — that the driver may have limited personal wealth. If he carried only Texas’s legal minimum auto insurance, that policy pays $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident for bodily injury. Two deaths. Sixty thousand dollars total. That does not begin to cover what this loss is worth.
The work of a wrongful death case is finding every defendant and every insurance policy that sits above and behind the driver. In this case, there are at least five potential sources of recovery, each with its own insurance tower:
The driver, personally. He turned into the motorcycle. He fled the scene. He is the primary tortfeasor. His personal auto insurance — if he had any — is the first layer. But if he carried minimum limits, that layer is exhausted almost immediately by a dual wrongful death.
The driver’s automobile insurer. The policy on the Silverado is the first source. But insurers defend aggressively, and some will attempt to deny coverage if the driver was excluded from the policy, if the vehicle was used outside policy terms, or if they argue the driver was not the registered owner. The insurer also faces what Texas lawyers call Stowers exposure — if liability is clear and the family makes a settlement demand within policy limits, the insurer must act reasonably in responding. If it does not, the insurer can be exposed to the full judgment, even above the policy limits.
The driver’s employer. This is the single most important investigation target in this case. Aranda is from Weslaco, Texas — in the Rio Grande Valley, approximately 500 miles from Odessa. Investigators found documents in his truck listing locations in Stanton, Weslaco, and Mercedes — three widely separated Texas cities. His employer was contacted and indicated he had not been to work since March 31, two days before the crash. If the Silverado was a company vehicle and Aranda was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash, the employer is vicariously liable under Texas law for all damages — including punitive damages. That single fact transforms this case from a low-coverage individual claim into a high-value commercial liability action with a far larger insurance tower. We discuss this in detail below.
A dram shop defendant. That nearly empty bottle of beer in the truck is not just evidence of possible intoxication. It is a lead. If Aranda consumed alcohol at a licensed establishment — a bar, restaurant, or liquor store — before the crash, and that establishment served him when he was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others, that provider can be held liable under Texas’s dram shop law. A licensed provider carries its own commercial general liability insurance, which is a separate source of recovery. We discuss this below.
The victims’ own UM/UIM carrier. If the at-fault driver was uninsured or underinsured — which is likely given the $50,000 bond suggesting limited assets — the Goodrums’ own motorcycle insurance policy may carry uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. In a hit-and-run context, UM coverage can be triggered when the at-fault driver is uninsured or cannot be identified. This is the family’s own insurance stepping into the shoes of the at-fault driver. We discuss this below.
The point is this: a family that looks only at the driver sees a $60,000 case. A family that maps every defendant and every policy sees a case that can reach seven figures or more. The difference is investigation, and investigation is what we do. Our wrongful death practice is built on finding every door and walking through every one.
Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Claims: Who Can File and What Can Be Recovered
Texas law gives families two separate legal claims after a death caused by someone else’s negligence. They are different causes of action with different beneficiaries, different damages, and different purposes. A lawyer who files only one is leaving value on the table.
The Wrongful Death Claim. Texas’s Wrongful Death Act allows certain surviving family members to sue for the losses they have suffered because of the death. The people who can bring a wrongful death claim are defined by statute: the surviving spouse, the surviving children, and the surviving parents. Each can bring their own claim, or they can join together in one action. If none of these beneficiaries files a claim within three months of the death, the executor or administrator of the estate can file it — unless the beneficiaries direct the executor not to. The damages in a wrongful death claim include the loss of the decedent’s earning capacity, the loss of the care, maintenance, support, advice, and counsel the decedent would have provided, and the loss of love, companionship, and society. In a case involving two married adults in their prime earning years — ages 40 and 38 — the lost earning capacity alone, projected across their remaining work-life expectancy in the Permian Basin labor market, is a substantial figure.
The Survival Claim. The survival action belongs to the estate of the decedent, not to the family members directly. It carries forward the claim the decedent would have had if they had survived — the pain, suffering, and mental anguish they experienced between the injury and death, plus any medical expenses incurred during that period and funeral costs. The question in this case is whether either Kristofer or Jessica Goodrum survived the impact for any measurable period before death. Both were pinned beneath the truck. The medical records, the autopsy, and the witness statements will establish the timeline. If either victim was conscious — even briefly — after being pinned, the survival claim adds a separate category of damages for that conscious pain and suffering.
The statute of limitations. In Texas, both wrongful death and survival actions must be filed within two years of the date of death. This is a hard deadline. If you miss it, the case is over — no exceptions for grief, for the criminal case being ongoing, for the family not being ready. Two years. For this crash, that means the filing deadline is April 2 of the second year following the deaths.
Comparative negligence. Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. This means that if the decedents are found to be 51% or more at fault for the crash, the family’s recovery is barred entirely. If they are found to be less than 51% at fault, the recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. This is why the defense will try to pin fault on the motorcycle — arguing it was speeding, arguing it was hard to see, arguing the rider should have braked. Every percentage point they can shift to the motorcycle is money subtracted from your recovery. An accident reconstructionist who can prove the motorcycle’s speed, the truck’s turning path, and the signal phase at the moment of impact is how you keep that percentage at zero.
No statutory damage caps. Unlike medical malpractice cases in Texas, which are subject to caps on non-economic damages, there are no statutory damage caps on wrongful death or personal injury verdicts arising from motor vehicle accidents. The jury is free to award the full measure of the loss — economic and non-economic — based on the evidence.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Disappears
Every piece of evidence in this case is on a timer. Some of it is already gone. Some of it will be gone by the time you finish reading this page. The purpose of a preservation letter — sent the day you hire a lawyer — is to freeze that evidence before it dies. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally disappear.
The Chevrolet Silverado — Event Data Recorder (EDR) and physical damage. The EDR is the truck’s black box. It captures pre-impact speed, brake application, throttle position, steering wheel angle, seatbelt use, and whether the turn signal was activated in the seconds before the crash. That last data point — the turn signal — is critical: it shows whether the driver signaled his turn or simply cut across the motorcycle’s path. The vehicle’s physical damage documents the angle of impact, the crush pattern, and the force of the collision — which an accident reconstructionist uses to calculate closing speed and confirm the turning conflict. The truck is in law enforcement custody now, but it can be released from impound or returned to the owner or insurer within weeks. Once released, it can be repaired, sold, or scrapped — and the EDR data can be overwritten. A preservation letter and an inspection order must go out immediately. The EDR data must be downloaded with the right forensic tool — a Bosch CDR or equivalent — by a trained expert, because the wrong handling can corrupt the single most honest witness to the crash.
The victims’ motorcycle — physical collision evidence. The motorcycle’s damage pattern confirms the point of impact, the angle of collision, and the speed at impact. Tire marks and frame deformation let a reconstructionist work backward to the motorcycle’s pre-impact speed — which is the defense’s favorite attack. If the defense can argue the motorcycle was speeding, they can shift comparative fault. The motorcycle’s damage is the proof that it was not. The motorcycle may be released to the insurance company or the family and repaired or scrapped within weeks. It must be inspected by a qualified reconstruction expert before that happens.
The nearly empty bottle of beer. This is in law enforcement custody. The bottle can be fingerprinted and tested for DNA to confirm who consumed the beer. The brand and type can be traced to a point of purchase — a convenience store, a grocery, a bar. If the bottle was purchased at a licensed establishment, that is a dram shop lead. If the establishment also served Aranda alcohol while he was obviously intoxicated, that establishment is a defendant. The chain of custody and the testing priorities must be monitored — the defense may seek to suppress or minimize this evidence.
Aranda’s cell phone records and location data. Cell phone records are perhaps the most time-sensitive evidence in this case. Historical location data — the pings that show where Aranda’s phone was in the hours before the crash — can identify bars, restaurants, or other establishments he visited. Text messages and call logs show whether he was distracted at the moment of collision. And the phone’s location after he fled the scene on foot can trace his flight path. But here is the problem: carrier retention policies vary, and historical location data can be purged within 60 to 180 days. A preservation letter to the carrier must go out immediately. Once the data is purged, it is gone — there is no way to recover it.
Surveillance footage from businesses near University Boulevard and Sycamore Drive. The intersection sits in a commercially developed area of Odessa. Businesses at or near the intersection may have exterior CCTV cameras that captured the collision itself, the traffic signal phase at the moment of impact, Aranda’s flight from the scene on foot, and the condition of the victims beneath the truck. This footage is independent corroboration of the witness accounts — and it is the fastest-dying evidence in the entire case. Business CCTV systems typically overwrite on a rolling cycle of 7 to 30 days. Every day that passes without a preservation demand, another camera may cycle past the footage of the crash. A canvass of every business at the intersection must be conducted within days, not weeks.
Aranda’s employment records. The employer was already contacted by investigators. The employer indicated Aranda had not been to work since March 31. But the employment records — the personnel file, the driving record, the vehicle assignment records, the time and pay records — are what prove whether the Silverado was a company vehicle and whether Aranda was on a work assignment. These records can be altered or destroyed. A preservation letter to the employer must go out immediately. The employer may cooperate or may stonewall depending on its own liability exposure — if the truck was a company vehicle, the employer has every reason to distance itself.
Aranda’s toxicology results. This is the cruelest evidence clock in the case. Aranda fled the scene on April 2. He was not arrested until April 20 — eighteen days later. If blood was drawn at booking on April 20, it reflects the BAC on April 20, not April 2. If no blood was drawn on the night of the crash — and none could be, because Aranda was gone — the direct BAC evidence for the night of the crash is likely irretrievably lost. A forensic toxicologist can attempt retroactive pharmacokinetic analysis — working backward from known facts (the beer bottle, the time of the crash, the time of arrest) to estimate what Aranda’s BAC might have been at 10:30 p.m. on April 2. But this is an inference, not a measurement, and the defense will fight it. The loss of toxicology evidence is a direct consequence of Aranda’s decision to flee — which is itself an argument for punitive damages.
Crash scene evidence. Skid marks, gouge marks in the pavement, the debris field, and the signal-timing data from the traffic controller at University Boulevard and Sycamore Drive. Skid marks and gouge marks degrade within days due to traffic, weather, and road maintenance. The signal-timing logs — which show whether the light was green, red, or turning yellow for each approach at the moment of impact — may be available from the City of Odessa, but retention varies. This data is the proof of who had the right of way. It must be demanded before it is overwritten or destroyed.
The preservation letter is the tool that freezes all of this. It goes to Aranda’s insurer, his employer, every business near the intersection, the cell phone carrier, and the City of Odessa. The letter puts each party on notice that evidence must be preserved and that destruction after notice can result in court sanctions — including an adverse inference instruction, where the jury is told they may assume the destroyed evidence was as damaging as the plaintiff says it was.
The Defendant Stack: Finding Every Source of Recovery
The difference between a $60,000 case and a multi-million-dollar case is the defendant stack. Here is how each layer works in this crash, and what we look for.
Layer 1: The driver’s personal auto insurance. Texas’s legal minimum is 30/60/25 — $30,000 per person for bodily injury, $60,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage. If Aranda carried only minimum limits, the $60,000 per-accident cap is split across two deaths. That is $30,000 per person, at most — and that assumes the insurer does not dispute coverage. Some policies exclude drivers who are not listed on the policy, or who are using the vehicle outside its rated use. The insurer’s first move will be to investigate whether coverage applies at all.
Layer 2: The employer’s commercial auto and general liability policies. If the Silverado was a company vehicle, the employer’s commercial auto policy is the primary source of coverage — and commercial policies are far larger than personal auto policies. A small company might carry $1 million or $2 million in commercial auto coverage. A larger company may carry $5 million or more in layered primary and excess policies. The employer’s commercial general liability policy may also provide coverage depending on the facts. This is why the employer question is the threshold investigation target: it transforms the case from a minimum-limits personal claim to a commercial liability action with a real insurance tower.
Layer 3: A dram shop defendant’s insurance. If a bar or restaurant served Aranda alcohol when he was obviously intoxicated, that establishment is liable under Texas’s dram shop statute. Licensed providers typically carry liquor liability coverage — sometimes as part of a commercial general liability policy, sometimes as a separate liquor liability endorsement. These policies can be substantial. The nearly empty beer bottle is the lead that opens this door.
Layer 4: The victims’ UM/UIM coverage. The Goodrums’ own motorcycle insurance policy may carry uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. If Aranda was uninsured or underinsured — which is likely given the economic signals — UM/UIM coverage provides an additional source of recovery. In a hit-and-run context, UM coverage may be triggered if the at-fault driver cannot be identified or is uninsured. The victims’ carrier steps into the shoes of the at-fault driver and pays what the at-fault driver’s policy would have paid. If the Goodrums carried UM/UIM coverage on multiple vehicles, there may be an argument for stacking — combining coverage from multiple policies. The car accident practice at our firm includes UM/UIM recovery as a standard part of the damages analysis.
Layer 5: Excess and umbrella policies. Above the primary auto or commercial policy, there may be a personal or commercial umbrella policy that provides additional layers of coverage. These are discovered through the claims process and through discovery if a lawsuit is filed.
Layer 6: Punitive damages. If the jury finds gross negligence — and the facts of this case support it — punitive damages are available. In Texas, punitive damages are subject to a statutory cap, but the cap is calculated based on the economic and non-economic damages awarded, meaning a case with substantial actual damages can support substantial punitive damages. We discuss this below.
Dram Shop Liability in Texas: When a Bar or Restaurant Shares the Blame
Texas has a dram shop law — codified in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code — that allows an injured person to hold a licensed provider of alcohol accountable when that provider served an obviously intoxicated person who presented a clear danger to themselves and others. The standard is specific and demanding: the plaintiff must prove that the provider served alcohol to a person who was obviously intoxicated to the extent that the person presented a clear danger to themselves and others, and that the intoxication was a proximate cause of the damages.
The nearly empty bottle of beer found in Aranda’s truck is the lead. Here is how a dram shop investigation works:
First, the bottle itself. The brand and type can be identified. If it is a brand sold at a specific establishment — a bar that carries a particular craft beer, a restaurant with a specific tap list — that narrows the search. Fingerprints or DNA on the bottle can confirm who consumed it. The bottle is in law enforcement custody, and the testing must be monitored.
Second, the cell phone location history. Aranda’s phone was presumably with him in the hours before the crash. Historical location data — the pings that show which cell towers the phone connected to — can place him at specific establishments before the crash. If the data shows he was at a bar or restaurant for an hour or more before driving to the intersection of University Boulevard and Sycamore Drive, that is a dram shop lead. This is why the cell phone preservation letter is so urgent — the location data is the map that traces Aranda’s path before the crash.
Third, credit and debit card receipts. If Aranda paid for drinks with a card, the receipts show where he was, what he bought, and how much he spent. These records are held by the financial institutions and the establishments themselves. They must be demanded before they are purged.
Fourth, witness statements. People who were at the establishment that night — bartenders, servers, other patrons — may have observed Aranda’s condition. Did he appear intoxicated? Was he stumbling, slurring, loud? Did anyone see him get into the Silverado? These witnesses must be identified and interviewed before memories fade and before they are contacted by the defense.
The dram shop claim is a separate cause of action against a separate defendant with its own insurance. It does not replace the claim against the driver — it adds to it. And in a case where the driver’s own coverage may be thin, the dram shop defendant can be the difference between a partial recovery and a full one.
Employer Liability: Was the Silverado a Company Vehicle?
This is the single most important factual question in the case. If the answer is yes — if the Silverado was a company vehicle and Aranda was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash — the entire case changes. The employer is vicariously liable under the Texas doctrine of respondeat superior, which means the employer is responsible for all damages caused by the employee’s negligence, including punitive damages for gross negligence committed within the scope of employment.
Here is what we know from the public reporting:
Aranda is from Weslaco, Texas. Weslaco is in the Rio Grande Valley, approximately 500 miles from Odessa. He was driving a Chevrolet Silverado on University Boulevard in Odessa at 10:30 p.m. on April 2. Investigators found documents in his truck listing locations in Stanton, Weslaco, and Mercedes — three cities spread across hundreds of miles of Texas. His employer was contacted and indicated he had not been to work since March 31 — two days before the crash.
Those facts raise a series of questions that a thorough investigation must answer:
Was the Silverado registered to Aranda personally, or to his employer? The vehicle registration and title records will answer this. Was the truck insured under a personal auto policy or a commercial auto policy? The insurance filings will answer this. Was Aranda on a work assignment that brought him to the Odessa area? The employment records — dispatch logs, work orders, customer addresses, route assignments — will answer this. Was he being paid for his travel time? The payroll records will answer this. Did the employer know he was driving 500 miles from home in a company vehicle? The communications records — emails, texts, dispatch messages — will answer this.
Stanton is a small town roughly halfway between Midland and Odessa — in Martin County, in the heart of the Permian Basin oilfield. Weslaco and Mercedes are in Hidalgo County, in the Rio Grande Valley, 500 miles to the south. The presence of documents referencing all three cities in the truck suggests Aranda may have been traveling between work sites — which is exactly the kind of activity that falls within the course and scope of employment.
If the employer provided the vehicle, the employer may also face a claim for negligent entrustment — the employer knew or should have known that Aranda was unfit to drive. If Aranda had a prior DWI, a suspended license, a history of substance abuse, or a poor driving record, and the employer put him behind the wheel of a company truck without checking, the employer is independently liable for its own negligence in entrusting the vehicle. The employer’s driver qualification file — which federal regulations require for commercial motor vehicle operators — would contain this information. If the employer is not subject to FMCSA regulations because the Silverado is a light vehicle under 10,001 pounds, the duty to check the driver’s record still exists under common-law negligent entrustment principles.
There is also a potential third-party claim if the employer is in the oilfield services industry — which is common in the Permian Basin. Oilfield service companies that send drivers across the state to well sites, fracking operations, and pipeline projects are a known hazard on West Texas highways. The 24-hour nature of oilfield operations means drivers are on the road at all hours, including at 10:30 at night on University Boulevard. If Aranda’s employer is an oilfield services company, the fatigue and scheduling practices may be additional evidence of negligence.
The employer liability question is the gate. If it opens, the case moves from a minimum-limits personal auto claim to a commercial liability action with a real insurance tower, real defendants, and real collectibility. The investigation to answer this question starts the day you call.
Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Hit-and-Run Cases
If the at-fault driver has no insurance — or not enough — the victims’ own insurance policy can step in. This is uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, or UM/UIM, and it is one of the most important and least understood sources of recovery in a hit-and-run wrongful death case.
In Texas, UM coverage applies when the at-fault driver is uninsured or unidentified. UIM coverage applies when the at-fault driver has insurance, but the policy limits are less than the damages. In a hit-and-run case, the at-fault driver may be deemed uninsured for UM purposes if he fled the scene and was not identified — or, as here, if he was identified but has minimal or no insurance.
The Goodrums’ motorcycle insurance policy is the first place to look. Did they carry UM/UIM coverage? In Texas, UM/UIM coverage is offered by default — the insurer must offer it in writing, and the insured must reject it in writing if they do not want it. If there is no written rejection, UM/UIM coverage is presumed. The policy declarations page will show the coverage limits.
If UM/UIM coverage exists, the family’s own insurance carrier steps into the shoes of the at-fault driver. The carrier pays what the at-fault driver’s policy would have paid — up to the UM/UIM policy limits. The UM/UIM carrier may then seek reimbursement from the at-fault driver personally, but that is the carrier’s problem, not the family’s.
If the Goodrums carried UM/UIM coverage on multiple vehicles — say, a motorcycle and a car — there may be an argument for stacking the coverage. Stacking means combining the UM/UIM limits from multiple policies to increase the total available recovery. Whether stacking is permitted depends on the policy language and Texas law, and it is a contested issue that requires careful analysis by a lawyer who understands Texas UM/UIM law.
One critical point: the UM/UIM carrier is the family’s own insurer, but once a claim is filed, the carrier may act like any other insurance company — investigating, defending, and attempting to minimize the payout. The family should not assume their own insurer is on their side. The UM/UIM carrier has a contractual obligation to act in good faith, but bad-faith claim handling is a real risk. An attorney who knows the Texas uninsured and underinsured motorist framework — and who knows how carriers set reserves and value claims from the inside — is how you keep the UM/UIM carrier honest.
The Medicine: Crush Injuries, Survival Time, and What the Records Show
Two people were pinned beneath a pickup truck. The medical question — and it is a legal question as well — is what happened inside their bodies between the moment of impact and the moment of death. That timeline is the foundation of the survival claim.
When a human body is pinned beneath a vehicle, the mechanism of injury is crush trauma. The weight of the truck compresses the chest, the abdomen, or the pelvis — or all three. The specific injuries depend on the position of the body, the duration of compression, and the force involved.
Compressive asphyxia. If the chest is compressed, the lungs cannot expand. The victim cannot breathe. Death can occur within minutes if the compression is severe enough to prevent respiration entirely. The question for the trauma surgeon and the forensic pathologist is whether the compression was severe enough, and how long it lasted.
Crush syndrome. When muscle tissue is crushed, the dying muscle cells release their contents — potassium, myoglobin, lactic acid — into the bloodstream. This is rhabdomyolysis. The myoglobin clogs the kidneys, potentially causing acute kidney injury. The potassium disrupts the heart’s electrical rhythm, potentially causing cardiac arrest. Crush syndrome can develop over minutes to hours depending on the extent of the crush and the duration of compression.
Traumatic injury. The impact itself — a several-thousand-pound pickup truck turning into the path of a motorcycle — produces blunt force trauma. Fractures, internal organ rupture, head injury, and spinal injury are all possible depending on the point of impact and the mechanics of the crash.
The survival question is whether either Kristofer or Jessica Goodrum was conscious — for seconds, for minutes — after being pinned. If the answer is yes, even briefly, the survival claim is real. The estate can recover for the conscious pain and suffering the decedent experienced between the injury and death. This is a separate category of damages from the wrongful death claim, and it can be substantial — particularly in a case where the mechanism of death involved being trapped beneath a vehicle and the driver chose to flee rather than render aid.
The evidence that establishes survival time includes the 911 call records, the EMS run sheets, the witness statements, the autopsy report, and the medical examiner’s findings. The autopsy will document the specific injuries and may include an opinion on the mechanism and timeline of death. The EMS records — if responders arrived while the victims were still pinned — may document vital signs, the extrication process, and the time of death pronouncement. These records must be obtained and reviewed by a qualified medical expert who can opine on survival time and conscious pain and suffering.
The defense will argue that death was instantaneous — that the impact was so severe that neither victim could have suffered. This is the defense’s standard position in a fatal crash case, because it eliminates the survival claim. The counter is the medical evidence: the autopsy findings, the witness accounts, the EMS records. If the evidence shows any interval of consciousness — any period during which the victim was aware of being trapped — the survival claim survives with it.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Do and How to Counter It
The insurance company has a playbook. It is not written down for you to see, but it is real, and it runs on every serious injury and wrongful death claim. Lupe Peña — our associate attorney — spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before he came to this side of the table. He sat in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows the plays because he used to run them. Now he uses that knowledge for injured people. Here are the plays you should expect, and the counter to each.
Play 1: The friendly “just checking in” call. Within days of the crash, someone from the at-fault driver’s insurance company may call you. The tone will be warm. The questions will seem casual. “We just want to hear your side of what happened.” “We just want to make sure you’re okay.” The call is recorded. Everything you say can and will be used against you. If you say “I’m doing alright” — because you were raised to be polite — that becomes “the family reported no significant emotional distress.” If you describe the crash and get a detail wrong — because you are grieving and exhausted — that becomes “the family’s account is inconsistent.”
The counter: Do not take the call. Do not return the call. If they reach you, say “I am not ready to discuss this, please contact my attorney” and hang up. You are not required to give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurance company. Anything you say will be shaped into a weapon. Say nothing until you have a lawyer.
Play 2: The fast settlement check. A check may arrive quickly — sometimes before the funeral. It may come with a release document that, if signed, extinguishes all claims against the driver and his insurer for any amount, forever. The amount may seem like a lot of money in the moment — $30,000, $60,000 — but it is a fraction of what the case is worth, and once you sign the release, the case is over. There is no second chance.
The counter: Do not sign anything. Do not deposit any check from an insurance company. Do not cash any check that says “settlement” or “full and final” or has a release printed on the back. Every document the insurance company sends you is designed to close the file cheaply. Bring every piece of paper to a lawyer before you touch it.
Play 3: The “the motorcycle was speeding” argument. This is the defense’s go-to move in every motorcycle crash case. They will argue the motorcycle was traveling above the speed limit, that the rider should have braked, that the bike was hard to see at night. Each argument is designed to shift comparative fault onto the victims — and under Texas’s 51% bar, if they can push the victims’ fault above 50%, the recovery is zero.
The counter: An accident reconstructionist who downloads the EDR data from the Silverado, inspects the motorcycle’s damage pattern, analyzes the skid marks and debris field, and reconstructs the collision dynamics with verified physics. The reconstructionist can establish the motorcycle’s pre-impact speed, the truck’s turning path, and the signal phase — proving who had the right of way. The duty to yield does not depend on how easy the other vehicle is to see. The defense’s job is to make the jury think the motorcycle is to blame. Our job is to make the jury see the physics. More on motorcycle crash reconstruction is in our motorcycle accident practice resource.
Play 4: The “pre-existing condition” attack. In a wrongful death case, the defense may investigate the decedents’ medical history for any prior condition — a prior injury, a chronic illness, a prior complaint of pain — and argue that the deaths were not solely caused by the crash. This is the eggshell plaintiff doctrine turned on its head: the defense tries to argue the victims were already fragile, so the crash is not fully to blame.
The counter: Texas law takes the victim as found. A defendant who causes harm to a person with a pre-existing vulnerability is liable for the full extent of the harm — not just the harm that a perfectly healthy person would have suffered. The eggshell plaintiff doctrine is a damages amplifier, not a defense. And in this case, two healthy employed adults in their late thirties and early forties were killed by a truck turning into their path. The defense’s pre-existing condition argument will face the medical records, the autopsy findings, and the testimony of the family who knew them.
Play 5: Delay. The insurance company may simply not respond. They may ask for extensions. They may say they need more documentation. They may request additional recorded statements. Each delay runs the statute of limitations clock closer to its deadline — and the insurance company knows exactly where that deadline is. The goal is to push the family past the two-year filing deadline, at which point the case is dead.
The counter: A lawyer who knows the deadline, who files before it, and who does not let the insurer run out the clock. The moment a lawsuit is filed, the insurer’s delay tactics lose their power — the case is in the court’s hands, not the adjuster’s.
What a Case Like This Is Worth
We are going to be honest with you about value, because honesty is the only thing that actually helps. No lawyer can tell you exactly what your case is worth without knowing the full facts — the insurance coverage, the employment relationship, the dram shop investigation, the UM/UIM limits, the earning history of the decedents, and the composition of the surviving family. But we can tell you the range, and what drives it.
The low end: approximately $500,000. This assumes the driver carried only Texas minimum auto insurance ($60,000 per accident), the Silverado was a personal vehicle with no employer liability, there is no dram shop defendant, and the victims’ motorcycle policy carried limited or no UM/UIM coverage. In this scenario, the available insurance is thin, the driver’s personal assets are likely limited (the $50,000 bond is an economic signal), and the recovery is constrained by collectibility — not by the merit of the claim, but by the available money.
The high end: $10,000,000 or more. This assumes the Silverado was a company vehicle with commercial general liability and auto coverage of $1 million or more, a viable dram shop claim with a licensed provider’s insurance, substantial UM/UIM coverage on the victims’ motorcycle policy (potentially stacked across multiple vehicles), and uncapped or capped-but-significant punitive damages. Two wrongful deaths of employed adults in their prime earning years, with clear liability and gross-negligence aggravators, drive the damages analysis into seven-figure territory on the merits alone.
What drives the value. The merit of the claim — two deaths, clear liability, gross negligence — is not the gating variable. The gating variable is collectibility: how much insurance exists, in what layers, and from which defendants. That is why the investigation — the employer question, the dram shop traceback, the UM/UIM analysis — is the work that determines the value. Two families with identical losses can have cases worth vastly different amounts depending on whether the lawyer found every policy.
The damages components. A complete damages model in a dual wrongful death case includes:
Lost earning capacity for both decedents, projected across their remaining work-life expectancy. A forensic economist builds this number using the decedents’ occupation, education, earnings history, and the labor market in the Permian Basin — where the oilfield economy can produce substantial earning potential. The projection includes wage growth, fringe benefits (health insurance, retirement contributions, paid leave — which the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures at approximately 30% of total compensation for private-industry workers), and household services (the value of the unpaid work each decedent performed at home — childcare, cooking, repairs, household management — valued at the market replacement rate).
In the wrongful death claim, the economist subtracts the decedents’ personal consumption — the share of income they would have spent on themselves — to arrive at the net financial support the surviving family members would have received. This is the number the family has lost.
Non-economic damages — mental anguish, loss of companionship, loss of society, the loss of counsel and guidance — are recoverable in full, with no statutory cap in a motor vehicle wrongful death case. The jury determines these damages based on the evidence of the relationship, the closeness of the family, and the impact of the loss.
Funeral and burial expenses are recoverable as economic damages.
If the survival claim is viable — if either victim was conscious after being pinned — the estate can recover for conscious pain and suffering. This is a separate category from the wrongful death damages and can be substantial in a case involving the terror of being trapped beneath a vehicle.
Punitive damages — if gross negligence is proven — are subject to a statutory cap under Texas law, but the cap is calculated as a function of the actual damages awarded. The general framework caps punitive damages at the greater of a fixed dollar amount or a multiple of economic damages plus non-economic damages. In a case with substantial actual damages, the punitive cap can be substantial as well.
Punitive Damages in Texas Hit-and-Run Cases
Texas allows punitive damages — called exemplary damages in the statute — when the plaintiff proves gross negligence. Gross negligence means an act or omission that involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness, and the actor proceeds with conscious indifference to that risk.
The facts of this case are a textbook gross negligence predicate:
The driver turned a pickup truck in front of a motorcycle — an act that creates an extreme degree of risk of serious harm or death to the motorcyclist, given the physics of a truck-motorcycle collision.
The driver had consumed alcohol — the nearly empty beer bottle in the truck is evidence of impairment, which increases the degree of risk and supports the argument that the driver was aware of the danger and proceeded anyway.
The driver saw two human beings pinned beneath his truck and chose to flee on foot rather than render aid or call for help. This is the conscious indifference element — the driver was personally, directly aware that two people were trapped and potentially dying beneath his vehicle, and he chose to leave them there. Under Texas law, the duty to stop and render aid after an accident involving death is not a suggestion — it is a criminal statute. Fleeing after seeing the victims is not just a criminal act; it is the civil definition of conscious indifference to human life.
Texas law requires a driver involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to immediately stop the vehicle at the scene, remain until duties are fulfilled, and render reasonable assistance — including transporting or arranging for transportation of any injured person for medical treatment. Failure to do so is a criminal offense.
Punitive damages in Texas are subject to a statutory cap. The general framework limits exemplary damages to the greater of a set dollar amount or a multiple of economic damages plus an amount of non-economic damages. The exact cap calculation depends on the specific facts and the damages awarded, but the point is this: in a case with substantial actual damages — and a dual wrongful death of two employed adults produces substantial actual damages — the punitive damages cap can be substantial as well.
The gross negligence finding also has a strategic effect on the insurance coverage. When the facts support punitive damages, the at-fault driver’s insurer faces excess exposure — the risk that a jury will award more than the policy limits. This creates leverage. Under Texas’s Stowers doctrine, if the plaintiff makes a reasonable settlement demand within the policy limits, and the insurer unreasonably refuses to settle, the insurer can be held liable for the full judgment — even the portion that exceeds the policy. The gross negligence facts in this case are the pressure that makes a Stowers demand effective.
The First 72 Hours: What Families Should Do Now
If you are the family of Kristofer and Jessica Goodrum, the most important things you can do in the first hours and days are the things that protect the evidence and protect your rights. Here is the roadmap.
Do not speak to the at-fault driver’s insurance company. They will call. They will be friendly. They will ask you to “just tell us what happened” on a recorded line. Say nothing except: “I am not ready to discuss this. Please contact my attorney.” Hang up. Every word you say will be shaped into a tool to reduce what they pay you.
Do not post about the crash on social media. Insurance adjusters and defense investigators monitor social media. A photo, a comment, a check-in — any of these can be taken out of context and used to argue that the family is not suffering as much as they claim, or that someone said something inconsistent with the legal claim. Grieve privately. Let your lawyer speak publicly.
Do not accept any settlement offer, no matter how quickly it arrives. The first offer is always the lowest offer. It is designed to close the file before the family realizes what the case is actually worth. If a check arrives with a release, do not sign it, do not deposit it, do not even keep it in the house. Bring it to a lawyer.
Do preserve everything you have. If you have the victims’ personal effects, their phone, their motorcycle helmet, their clothing from the night of the crash — keep it all, keep it safe, and do not clean or alter anything. If you have photographs of the scene, the vehicles, the victims — keep them. If you have contact information for witnesses — write it down. Every physical item and every piece of information is evidence.
Do contact a lawyer immediately. The preservation letters — to the insurer, the employer, the businesses near the intersection, the cell phone carriers, the City of Odessa — must go out within days, not weeks. The vehicle inspections must be scheduled before the truck and the motorcycle are released. The employment records must be demanded before they can be altered. Every day that passes is a day the evidence dies. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Do understand the personal representative process. Before a wrongful death lawsuit can be filed, the court must appoint a personal representative — the person authorized to bring the estate’s claim. This is typically a surviving family member — a parent, an adult child, or a sibling. We handle this appointment as part of the representation. It is a necessary procedural step, and it should be done promptly so the filing deadline is not compromised.
Do know that the criminal case and the civil case run in parallel. You do not have to choose. The criminal prosecution of Aranda proceeds on its own track — the Ector County District Attorney handles that. Your civil case proceeds on its track — your lawyer handles that. The two cases can and should run simultaneously. A conviction or guilty plea in the criminal case can strengthen the civil case by establishing negligence per se, but it is not required. Your lawyer should monitor the criminal proceedings and coordinate with the prosecutor’s office — not to interfere, but to ensure that any factual admissions or conviction findings are available for use in the civil case.
How the Proof Story Is Built
Here is how a case like this is actually built, from the day you call to the day a number is put on the table.
Week one. The preservation letters go out — to Aranda’s insurer, his employer, every business near University Boulevard and Sycamore Drive, the cell phone carrier, and the City of Odessa. Each letter demands that evidence be frozen: the truck, the motorcycle, the EDR data, the surveillance footage, the cell phone records, the employment records, the signal-timing data. The personal representative is appointed. The criminal case is monitored, and contact is made with the prosecutor’s office.
Weeks two through four. The vehicles are inspected. The truck’s EDR is downloaded by a qualified expert with the right forensic tool. The motorcycle is photographed, measured, and documented. An accident reconstructionist begins building the collision model — the turning path, the closing speed, the signal phase, the point of impact, the crush pattern. The cell phone records arrive — if the preservation letter was sent in time. The location data is analyzed to trace Aranda’s movements before the crash. If the data places him at a bar or restaurant, the dram shop investigation begins. The employment records are demanded — the personnel file, the driving record, the vehicle assignment, the time and pay records, the dispatch logs.
Months one through three. The experts are retained: an accident reconstructionist for the collision dynamics, a forensic toxicologist for the retroactive BAC analysis, a trauma surgeon for the mechanism of death and survival time, a forensic economist for the dual lost-earning-capacity projections. The medical records, the autopsy report, the EMS run sheets, the 911 call records are obtained and reviewed. The witness statements are taken — before memories fade and before the defense contacts them. The dram shop investigation, if viable, identifies the establishment, the servers, and the evidence of obvious intoxication.
Months three through six. If the case has not settled — and in a case this complex, it should not settle until every layer is mapped — the lawsuit is filed in the Ector County District Court. The jury that decides this case will be twelve people from Ector County — people who know University Boulevard, who know the Permian Basin traffic, who understand what it means to lose two people on a West Texas highway at night. That is the home field, and it belongs to the family.
Discovery. The defendants are deposed under oath. The employer’s safety director — if there is an employer defendant — explains the company’s choices. The driver, if he is available and willing to testify, explains his choices. The bartender or server — if there is a dram shop defendant — explains what they saw. The insurance adjuster explains how the claim was valued. Every deposition is a chance to lock in testimony before the defense can shape it.
The number. The number at the end is built from all of it — the EDR data, the reconstruction, the cell phone trail, the employment records, the dram shop evidence, the medical records, the autopsy, the expert reports, the economic projections, the depositions, and the gross negligence facts. It is not a number pulled from the air. It is the sum of provable losses, calculated by experts, grounded in evidence, and presented to a jury of the family’s neighbors.
Why Motorcycle Cases Are Different
A motorcycle crash case is not the same as a car crash case. The physics are different. The injuries are different. And the jury’s starting assumptions are different — which is why voir dire — the jury selection process — is so critical.
The physics. A motorcycle has no crash structure, no airbags, no crumple zones. The rider’s body absorbs the impact directly. In a collision with a pickup truck — which outweighs a motorcycle by twenty or thirty times — the motorcycle and its riders lose every time. The vulnerable road user page on our site covers these dynamics in detail — the right-hook crash, the SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You) phenomenon, and why the duty to yield is the rider’s primary legal protection.
The conspicuity issue. At 10:30 p.m. on University Boulevard, a motorcycle is harder to see than a car. Headlight glare from oncoming traffic, the reduced field of view at night, and the smaller visual profile of a motorcycle all contribute to the risk. The defense will use this — “the driver didn’t see the motorcycle” — as if it were an excuse. It is not. The duty to yield requires the driver to look. A driver who turns across a lane of traffic without confirming it is clear has failed the most basic duty of operating a motor vehicle. “I didn’t see them” is an admission of inattention, not a defense.
The anti-motorcycle bias. Here is what a generalist misses and what an experienced trial lawyer knows: some jurors walk into the courtroom with a prejudice against motorcyclists. They think riders are reckless. They think riders speed. They think riders take risks by choosing to ride. This bias is real, it is measurable, and it can destroy a case if it is not addressed. Voir dire — the process of questioning potential jurors — must identify and educate jurors on this bias. The lawyer must ask: “Do you believe motorcyclists are generally more reckless than other drivers?” “Would you hold it against a person that they chose to ride a motorcycle instead of driving a car?” The jurors who cannot set that bias aside must be struck. The ones who remain must be educated — on the duty to yield, on the physics of the crash, on the fact that the motorcycle had the right of way, and on the fact that two people died because a truck turned into their path. For more on how motorcycle cases are tried, our motorcycle accident guide walks through the specifics.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we sue if the driver was arrested and charged?
Yes. The criminal case and the civil case are entirely separate. The criminal prosecution — the State of Texas versus the driver — can result in a prison sentence, but it does not compensate your family. The civil wrongful death case — your family versus the driver and every other liable party — is the case that pays for the financial and human losses your family has suffered. A criminal conviction can strengthen your civil case by establishing negligence per se, but you do not need to wait for the criminal case to finish. The civil filing deadline is two years from the date of death, and it runs regardless of what happens in the criminal prosecution.
How long do we have to file a wrongful death lawsuit in Texas?
Two years from the date of death. This is the Texas statute of limitations for both wrongful death and survival actions. For this crash, the deadline runs from April 2. If the case is not filed before the two-year deadline, the claim is barred — the court will dismiss it regardless of how strong the evidence is. There are limited tolling provisions in some circumstances, but you should never rely on tolling. The safe assumption is that the two-year clock is running and will not stop.
What if the driver has no insurance or very little insurance?
This is a real risk. The $50,000 bond suggests limited personal assets, and if the driver carried only Texas minimum auto insurance, the coverage may be as low as $60,000 per accident. But that is not the end of the case. There are multiple other potential sources of recovery: the driver’s employer’s commercial insurance (if the truck was a company vehicle), a dram shop defendant’s liquor liability insurance (if a bar served him while obviously intoxicated), and the victims’ own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. The job of a wrongful death lawyer is to find every policy and every defendant — not to accept the first coverage number the insurer mentions.
Can we sue the employer if the truck was a work vehicle?
Yes — if the truck was a company vehicle and the driver was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash. Under Texas’s respondeat superior doctrine, an employer is vicariously liable for all damages caused by its employee’s negligence during the scope of employment — including punitive damages for gross negligence. The facts in this case — the driver’s home is 500 miles from the crash site, documents in the truck reference multiple Texas cities, and the employer was contacted by investigators — all support a thorough investigation of the employment relationship. If the employer provided the vehicle, the employer may also face a negligent entrustment claim if it knew or should have known the driver was unfit.
What is a dram shop claim and does it apply here?
A dram shop claim under Texas law allows you to hold a licensed alcohol provider — a bar, restaurant, or similar establishment — liable if it served alcohol to a person who was obviously intoxicated to the extent that the person presented a clear danger to themselves and others, and the intoxication was a proximate cause of the crash. The nearly empty beer bottle found in the truck is a lead, not a conclusion. A dram shop investigation traces the driver’s movements before the crash — through cell phone location data, credit card receipts, and witness statements — to identify whether he was served alcohol at a licensed establishment while visibly intoxicated. If he was, that establishment is a separate defendant with its own insurance.
How much is a wrongful death case worth?
It depends on the facts and the available insurance coverage. In this case, the merit of the claim — two deaths, clear liability, gross negligence — is strong. The gating variable is collectibility: how much insurance exists, from which defendants, in what layers. The low end of the range assumes only the driver’s personal auto insurance with no employer liability, no dram shop, and limited UM/UIM — approximately $500,000. The high end assumes commercial employer coverage, a viable dram shop claim, substantial UM/UIM, and significant punitive damages — $10,000,000 or more. Two wrongful deaths of employed adults in their late thirties and early forties, with clear liability and gross-negligence aggravators, drive the damages into seven figures on the merits alone. The investigation is what determines where in that range the case lands.
Does the driver fleeing the scene make the case worth more?
Yes — substantially more. Fleeing the scene after personally observing two people pinned beneath the truck is the legal definition of conscious indifference to human life. Under Texas law, that is the predicate for gross negligence, which opens the door to punitive — exemplary — damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter, not just to compensate. They are subject to a statutory cap, but in a case with substantial actual damages, the cap can be substantial as well. The flight also strengthens the negligence per se argument — the driver violated Texas’s statutory duty to stop and render aid, and that violation is evidence of negligence in the civil case.
What should we do right now?
Do not speak to the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Do not post about the crash on social media. Do not sign any document or deposit any check from an insurance company. Do preserve everything you have — personal effects, photographs, contact information. And call a lawyer today. The preservation letters that freeze the evidence before it disappears must go out within days, not weeks. The vehicle inspections must be scheduled before the truck and motorcycle are released. The cell phone records must be demanded before the carrier purges them. Every day that passes is a day the evidence dies. Call 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free, and we do not get paid unless we win your case.
What if the driver was drunk? Does that change things?
It can change things in two ways. First, if the driver was intoxicated, that is additional evidence of gross negligence — driving under the influence is itself an extreme degree of risk, and proceeding to drive while impaired is conscious indifference. This strengthens the punitive damages argument. Second, if the driver consumed alcohol at a licensed establishment before the crash, it opens a dram shop claim against that establishment — a separate defendant with separate insurance. The challenge in this case is that the driver fled the scene and was not arrested for eighteen days, meaning direct blood alcohol evidence from the night of the crash is likely lost. A forensic toxicologist can attempt retroactive analysis, but the dram shop investigation — tracing the driver’s movements through cell phone data and receipts — may be more productive than the toxicology.
Can we still recover if the driver is found not guilty in the criminal case?
Yes. The criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — the highest standard in the legal system. The civil case requires a preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not. These are very different burdens. A defendant can be acquitted in criminal court and still be found liable in civil court, because the civil standard is lower. The criminal acquittal of O.J. Simpson is the most famous example — he was acquitted of murder but found liable for wrongful death in the civil case. Your civil case does not depend on a criminal conviction.
Why This Firm
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We have been taking cases in Texas since 2001. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has been licensed in Texas since 1998 — 27+ years. He is a journalist who became a lawyer, and he brings a trial lawyer’s instinct and a storyteller’s craft to every case. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and he has tried cases in courtrooms across this state.
Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours. He knows how the recorded statement is engineered. He knows how the claim is fed into valuation software that discounts pain it cannot see. He knows because he did it. Now he uses that knowledge for injured people and grieving families. Lupe is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — and we serve your family fully in either language. Hablamos Español.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% if the case settles before trial, and 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. The first call costs nothing and commits you to nothing. You will speak with a live person, 24 hours a day, seven days a week — not an answering service, not a chatbot, a person.
The evidence in your case is dying. The surveillance footage from University Boulevard is being overwritten. The cell phone records are aging out of carrier retention. The truck and the motorcycle sit in impound, waiting to be released. The day you call is the day the preservation letters go out — the day the evidence is frozen, the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Or contact us through the website. We will talk with you, answer your questions, and tell you honestly whether we are the right fit for your family. If we are not, we will tell you that too. But if we are, we will get to work that day — because the evidence will not wait, and neither should you.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice about your specific situation, call us. We are here.